The historical context of Slovakia in the 1930s is not often mentioned in connection with the formation of professional associations, especially those representing the interests of specific professions such as foresters. In 1933, there was no strong tradition of forestry associations in the country, which may be partly attributed to the fact that foresters were unable or unmotivated to form a professional association in the modern sense. This lack of organisation meant that foresters did not have a collective voice or representation that could effectively promote their interests and improve their working conditions.
One of the main problems affecting the status and opportunities of foresters was the nature of officialdom in Slovakia at the time. Officials were brought up in a spirit of obedience, which often hindered their ability to adapt to democratic principles and modern times. This set-up had a direct impact on the forestry sector, where efikasnost and development opportunities were crucial for the management and maintenance of forest ecosystems.
The criticism directed at officialdom is based on the belief that the level of officials directly defines the effectiveness of any forestry association. As long as officials are only focused on carrying out orders without a deeper understanding and democratic approach, reforms and initiatives that might emanate from forestry organizations are likely to be resisted or never fully implemented.
The relationship between foresters and officials is thus a key factor affecting the performance and status of foresters. Without an effectively functioning apparatus to promote change and respond to modern challenges, foresters remain in a position where their voice and needs are not adequately addressed in the broader context of employment and state policies.
The social status of foresters is therefore closely linked to national employment issues. Foresters' interference in the state employment system and policy is described as ineffective due to the constraints that the civil service has in this area. Unless there is a change in approach and room for democratic and flexible access is opened up, foresters will remain in an inferior position with no real influence on their profession and the improvement of working conditions.
One of the proposed solutions is the need for foresters to have an active voice in state employee organisations. It is highly likely that only through active participation and representation in these structures can the status and interests of foresters be improved and adequately represented. This would require not only initiative on the part of the foresters themselves, but also a willingness for dialogue on the part of officials and those who hold power in these structures. Since the associations themselves could not form effectively without support, this new approach could be key to change for the better.
